Try the page where you deleted the text that said it is the publishers wishes to keep certain cards blank. The information you needed was right there. Deleting it doesnt magically change things like it never was so.
We are not representatives for the publishers but we do follow there directives when they contact us. In some case they contact the actual mod developers or the mod developer has contacted the publisher and also relayed those wishes.
In any case we post what is and isnt allowed in the module information section when it is of a blanket nature (i.e modules by publisher not allowed) or otherwise on the actual module page in question if something unique to that module - as was the case for your situation
Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S®4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Delvahart firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: 2015/06/03 5:20 PM (GMT-06:00)
Subject: [messages] [Module General Discussion] Publisher Policy Wishes -
I am trying to find where the Vassal development team is storing these
policies or the notifications from the publishers. Hard to do
development here blindly without knowing the “rules”.
Read this topic online here:
messages mailing list
“Deleting it doesnt magically change things like it never was so.”
So you do not have an actual written source from the publisher to link too? For example a link to the publisher’s policy regarding their reuse policies or if they are under a Creative Commons type of system. The opposite can be said with your statement and just saying it doesn’t magically make it so either that a publisher has blocked something. It would be nice if these restrictions were sourced a little better. I’m just trying to understand the process a little better.
Thus spake Delvahart:
So you do not have an actual written source from the publisher to link
No, because I can’t think of a publisher which has such a written
policy on their site. My recolletion is that it’s always been individual
requests from publishers, via email.
Gotcha. So why not post the contents of the email and timestamp when it was received?
Thus spake Delvahart:
My recolletion is that it’s always been individual requests from
publishers, via email.
Gotcha. So why not post the contents of the email and timestamp when it
Firstly, because those are private communications, and it’s not clear
that I have the right to do so; and secondly, because at this point, I’d
have to track down a dozen or so of them since 2006 from my email
archive, which would not be easy since I know neither the subjects nor
I’d also add, that we do not receive all communications from the publishers either. They sometimes contact or have been contacted by the module developers directly (which iirc is the case in this instance) and the module developer has commented somehow about a module’s status on the corresponding module page.
Is there any way that you can alter your postings so they aren’t effectively splitting every thread you reply to into two threads? It will make following something to its logical conclusion very difficult when searching in the future.
Thus spake JoelCFC25 via messages:
Is there any way that you can alter your postings so they aren’t
effectively splitting every thread you reply to into two threads? It
will make following something to its logical conclusion very difficult
when searching in the future.
Who’s “you” here? Me? Tim? Delvahart?
it would appear to have something to do when I reply via my smartphone when it happens i notice
Because I use Vassal also as a sort of “try-before-buy”, I noticed that even GMT (AFAIK the company most aware about Vassal, up to actually use it as playtesting tool…) is spotty in their policy wishes (GBoH is a case in point, the main request (not including the CRT & tables) isn’t consistently applied, as Vassal modules go. some have CRT, other not, and the having/not having CRTs is unrelated with the release/reprint/P500 programs…